Tasty serials

“Journal spend, use and research outcomes: a UK perspective on value for money” (PDF link), by Ian Rowlands at the UK Serials Group Conference, 31st March 2009. In amongst the inevitable science journals (yawn), his group also made a case-study of History ejournals. One interesting factoid…

“86.5 per cent of titles in the arts, humanities and social sciences are now available online”

Only 86.5%?

From the same conference: “Electronic journals, continuing access and long-term preservation: roles, responsibilities and emerging solutions” (Powerpoint link, 2Mb). It seems a useful overview of the problems, and the initiatives (LOCKSS, Portico, etc) currently underway.

Short-run open access titles in the arts and humanities are especially vulnerable to loss, judging from my experience of finding one too many “404 not found” and domain-squatted pages while building JURN. One solution that springs to mind might be to build into open access journal software an automatic “collect all the articles into a single POD-ready printable 8″ x 10″ PDF and upload it on publication to a print-on-demand book printer” (such as Lulu). National deposit libraries could then access a uniform printed (although probably not archival/acid-free) copy for their stacks. And so could anyone else who wanted a printed copy.

Another rather more humourous idea might be to have a Big Red Button integrated into the journal’s software control panel — especially useful for graduate Cultural Studies ejournals perhaps — marked:

“We can’t be bothered any more, upload everything to archive.org and then delete the website”

Of course, a ‘brute force’ approach would be to buy a fat new hard-drive and then run site-ripper software (free tools such as the British Library Web Curator Tool and the independent WinHTTrack spring to mind) on the JURN Directory. But there’s a problem — many independent ejournals keep their article files at a radically different URL than that of the home website. A third of the time you’d end up with a nice snapshot of the website, but no articles. Unless you could specifically tell the software to download all unique off-site files/pages that were being directly linked to by the targetted website (that’s if you’re lucky and the journal doesn’t use scripted “bouncing-bomb” URLs that dynamically bounce into repositories to get the PDF). But then, many journal entry-points are just a page on a larger departmental website — so you could end up hauling in terabytes of unwanted material either way.

Or for a more managed solution, one could spend £12,000 paying students at £12 an hour to spend an average of 40 minutes per title (across 1,700 titles), to go in and hand-archive all the articles and TOCs into named directories on a hard-drive. Even if management bloated the cost, I’d guess an initial archival capture could probably be done for less than £50k? Heck, I’ll do it myself if someone wants to offer me £50k.

Of course, if librarians had made and promoted just one simple little Google-friendly tagging/flagging standard for online open-access journal articles… then none of this would have been needed.

Lincoln pie

Paul Stainthorp at Lincoln University (in the British Isles) has quantified the real-world electronic journal usage he’s seeing at the library…

“12% of all our usage — one eighth — derives from journals which we don’t pay for. Most of this is from journals listed in the EBSCO Open Access Journals package.”

He’s put together a handy pie chart…

ejourpie

According to EBSCO, this is a package of “nearly 2,000” open access titles, including science, medicine, politics, business, etc.

Mind your language

A new June 2009 position paper from the British Academy, arising from a one year study to…

“investigate the hypothesis that UK humanities and social science research was becoming increasingly insular in outlook (and even in aims)”

… due to the way in which, it is claimed, a…

“lack of [ second ] language skills inflicts a real handicap on scholars”.

Inward-looking UK funding models may also be a strong factor, although this is not mentioned. And the incredible barriers raised by European universities against British academic job-seekers.

Equally worryingly, the report talks of…

“An over-reliance on imported talent” … [ humanities and social science ] “university departments are increasingly addressing this skills shortage by buying-in the skills they need from abroad, rather than by seeking to help UK researchers and academics to ‘upskill’.”

That sounds very familiar. A very accurate observation, I’d say.

In the absence of such UK language skills, perhaps we need a Google Translate specialist ‘Humanities Scholar version’. Along with serious up-skilling on search in other languages. In China you can’t become even a junior academic, unless you pass a rigorous state test on how to use Google ‘to the max’. The test includes…

“how to use Google for automatic translation from Chinese to English or the other way round”

Publishing art books

The managing director of Thames & Hudson gives a clear overview, in The Art Newspaper of some of the problems in the contemporary publishing of art books. It seems a sound article, but I’d like to pick up a couple of points.

He writes that the…

“preoccupation with low prices has had the pernicious effect of devaluing books in the minds of consumers”

…but seems to imply that Amazon is mainly to blame. He doesn’t mention the effect of near slave-labour printing in the Far East, as a factor that has allegedly allowed publishers to drop prices for huge coffee-table tomes that might have otherwise retailed at twice the price.

He also mentions in passing (and might have said more about) another trend that is, in a different way, “devaluing books in the minds of consumers” — the journalistic hunger to sniff at the dirty-linen drawer of dead artists and thus to…

“appropriate art for contemporary society’s great mass-market fuel: celebrity”

Undesirables

A new article at the German Goethe-Institut website…

“The ‘universal’ library of the American search engine company Google, on the other hand, has no primary significance for the desirable exchange of scientific and scholarly information”

/Cough/

A casual search turns up what sounds like something of a rebuttal: “Google Scholar versus PubMed in Locating Primary Literature to Answer Drug-Related Questions” (March 2009)…

“No significant differences were identified in the number of target primary literature articles located between databases. PubMed searches yielded fewer total citations than Google Scholar results…”

And another: “Google Scholar Search Performance: Comparative Recall and Precision” (January 2009)…

“a comparative evaluation of Google Scholar and 11 other bibliographic databases (Academic Search Elite, AgeLine, ArticleFirst, EconLit, GEOBASE, MEDLINE, PAIS International, POPLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, and SocINDEX), focusing on search performance within the multidisciplinary field of later-life migration. The results of simple keyword searches are evaluated with reference to a set of 155 relevant articles identified in advance. In terms of both recall and precision, Google Scholar performs better than most of the subscription databases. This finding, based on a rigorous evaluation procedure…”

And of course this recent article, which I blogged a few days ago: “How Scholarly is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases” (PDF pre-print paper for College & Research Libraries journal, accepted 30th June 2008)…

“We found that Google Scholar is, on average, 17.6% more scholarly than materials found only in library databases and that there is no statistically significant difference between the scholarliness of materials found in Google Scholar across disciplines.”

A weed among the shemales

I’ve weeded some crud from the index, a result of running a range of test searches with JURN. The following were removed:- six publication titles (spam infestation, mostly in trade and fashion magazines); ten poor-quality blogs (they’d set up shop within various journal websites); and two ‘artist directories’ (again, set up within magazine websites).

JURN — now probably the only search-engine on the planet where you can safely search for shemales, viagra and similar, and actually get useful results. Heh.

eJournal 2.0

“Academia 2.0: What Would a Fully Interactive Journal Article Look Like?”

“We wrapped up the paper yesterday and it got me thinking about what a fully interactive version of the paper would look like. What if all the maps and charts were embeds? What if you could download all the data sets used for the analysis right from the paper? While many journal have come online and some even in openly accessible venues – I don’t think we’ve really tapped the power of the Web for interactivity, data sharing, innovation, or peer review.”

The full article, on “Geospatial Modeling of Supply Shocks”, is included in the post…

“Opening up the commenting and feedback process could foster even better critique of work. By also making data available, an incentive is created for fellow researchers to interact with the research, provide feedback, and collaborate with authors. Potentially you could create a journal in such a format leveraging interactive tools across the web. To give this idea a go I’ve created an example of what such an article could look like with our oil paper as the guinea pig”